Posted on 08/06/2002 3:51:13 AM PDT by jalisco555
You are supporting Bush for raising spending by amounts that would have made Lyndon Johnson blush, and for being politically correct in airport security, and for imposing steel tarrifs. If that's not liberal, I don't know what is.
Me? She has had reviews of her recent literary "problems" in many newspapers and magazines, including the Wash Post, NYT and virtually every news magazine. PBS, a "liberal" oriented , subsidized media outlet has virtually banned her. She has had speaking engagements cancelled and academic awards recinded and is a virtual laughingstock in many erstwhile liberal academic institutions
Where have you been? This left wing rag (LA Times) review is belated, to say the least. Do you read much? It would seem that you're the one with a bias (and in denial), not me.
Where have you been? This left wing rag (LA Times) review is belated, to say the least. Do you read much? It would seem that you're the one with a bias (and in denial), not me.
Right, all the liberal organizations have decided that she is not politically correct. And you are jumping on the bandwagon. Since when are freepers concerned about political correctness? It's unseemly.
I never said a word about Goodwin. I just questioned your loyal defence of her in this forum.
You are supporting Bush for raising spending by amounts that would have made Lyndon Johnson blush, and for being politically correct in airport security, and for imposing steel tarrifs. If that's not liberal, I don't know what is.
Again I never said anything about Bush. I just questioned why you constantly bash Bush in so many posts while defending the likes of Clinton, Gore and Goodwin.
Admit it you are a liberal in Freep's clothing.
Oh, for crying out loud. She is the MOST politically correct historian out there. She only writes about liberal "icons". Thats why she is on all the media shows .
The reason she has been ostracized lately is that she has been found to be a FRAUD. Some academic institutions are concerned with their reputations; nobody likes a fraud. Except you, apparently.
It's CHEATING, STEALING, INTELLECTUAL THEFT.
Are you going to sit there and tell me you never paraphrased a sentence in a term paper?
You guys are complaining that she lifted 10 words in a row, instead of only 5. You wouldn't care if she lifted every idea, so long as she changed enough words.
To the extent that she is copying ideas-- she is citing the books. That's the way scholarship is supposed to work. You take somebody elses ideas, cite them, and embellish them and add new ones. She is doing that, and you are not complaining about that. You are complaining only about some worthless words.
I don't care about the words, unless it gets excessive, which she is nowhere near. To complain about the words is total political correctness-- focussing on form and ignoring substance.
I did not know that the Libertarians supported balancing budgets on the backs of tobacco smokers. BTW Libertarian is spelled with a capitol L.
If Republicans do something worthwhile-- like Bloomberg has been trying to do-- I praise them.
Bloomberg is a RINO you have never had a good word for a real Republican.
When they behave worse than Democrats-- like Bush and the Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in many statehouses over the last several years have done-- I castigate them.
You mean over the last several decades don't you. You have never been conservative and have no respect for conservatives.
I don't support the tobacco tax increase. You must have misunderstood. I just think that, on balance, Bloomberg is behaving better than almost any other politician I can name. He has, regrettably and unfortunately raised a few taxes, for which he should be justly criticized, but he has also cut spending and attempted to run a reasonable government.
I repeat, find me a Republican who has actually cut spending, and I'll praise her.
Me.
If it is non-fiction, especially history, I want to know their sources.
I do agree that some of the charges against Goodwin may seem silly, but ---- Imagine that you were the writer who did all of the hard work of reviewing original sources --- letters, diaries, archives etc. --- interviewing sources, and then crafting the words that condensed what may have been days, weeks or months of effort into one sentence or paragraph, and then to find your words used almost verbatim, with no credit, by a lazy 'celebrity-writer' working on a fat advance.
I would be pissed, and so would you. Kerns-Goodwin and Ambrose more than deserve the slap-downs they are getting.
You're right. Doesn't speak well of either of them.
You're right. Doesn't speak well of either of them.
I completely disagree with that. A well written term paper presents facts and ideas taken from a number of sources, and improves them with the author's own ideas and also by bringing them together and presenting them in a coherent fashion. The emphasis should be on the finished product being coherent and interesting and on the ideas. The paper will of necessity paraphrase its sources. Spending all one's time focussing on how many words are rearranged in the paraphrase is a horrible kind of political correctness, that people with no substance to communicate engage in, but which anybody concerned with substance would disdain.
Works one uses should be cited, and obviously you shouldn't take whole pages verbatim without quoting them, but if a fraction of the term paper is paraphrases of cited sources, there is nothing wrong with that.
Aside from her first book in which she became the mistress of her subject, how much original research has she done on her "novels"? I contend.. not a whole lot. It's only because of her political outlook and media connections that she has achieved her current notoriety at all..IMO.
Agreed. I know several people (my father included), who were die-hard Brooklyn Dodger fans, but who changed allegiances after the team moved to California.
Or perhaps, whoever has written it.
I suspect not a lot. It seems she relies mostly on 'secondary sources' --- i.e. other people's hard work --- and then collects the big royalties that come with her celebrity. I really don’t consider her to be a serious historian regardless of her politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.